Democracy needs true, real intelligence

December 26, 2007

One of the critical sectors of the efforts to create artificial intelligence is computer programming designed to simulate an intelligent conversation with humans. While these programs seem to be intelligently interpreting human input and responding to it, these "chatter bots" are actually just responding to key words with presorted word patterns from a large data base. Chatter bots don't have real intelligence, so they can't actually understand your questions or comments. These chatter bots can't ponder or consider your questions and return a relevant answer. That is why they're called artificially intelligent. But they are "intelligent" enough to fool many people into believing they are communicating with a real person. They are presently used on the Internet in various applications; for example online dating chat lines. In this application, the hapless human believes he or she is communicating with the love of their lives, when they are in fact communicating with a robot. The conversation might go something like this: Human Bob, "Sue, I have been feeling anxious lately." Chatter bot Sue, "What have you been feeling anxious about lately Bob?" Human, "I feel really alone in this world." Chatter bot Sue, "You don't need to feel lonely, you've got me." While the human might feel that he or she is being responded to, the bots response is preprogrammed. In the case of dating chat lines, the bots assume that the human is emotionally motivated to accept certain kinds of responses and are programmed to deliver the preprogrammed responses. In the context of the conversation, the responses often seem rather clever. Add to the mix a sexually attractive photo of the Chatter Bot and artificial intelligence is quite sufficient. The human will likely suspend utilization of its intelligence. But so much of human-to-human communication operates on this same level. How many times are our responses to inquiries or comments unencumbered by the thought process? How many times do we accept political or religious speeches without reflection or critical thought? One excellent example: political press conferences and debates. How many times have we heard the candidate asked a question that is clear and direct and the answer comes back sounding like a chatter bot? Actually the chatter bot will often have a better answer, because it will at least respond to the topic of the question. The politicians will often respond with spin, meaning spinning quickly away from the question. Often they will respond with an answer that has nothing to do with the question. And unlike the bots, many of them consistently get the spelling and grammar wrong. One would think that by now, the press corps would penalize politicians who consistently engage in chatter botting. They could, for example, ignore them or at least expose them as chatter bots. One would think that the media would make a regular point of reviewing how politicians either did not answer the questions asked or gave answers that were at variance with the facts. It often seems that members of the press corps are so excited that politicians pay attention to them, they don't care how they respond to their questions. Media aside, much of the time it is clear to us that politicians are not responding frankly to the questions. But we don't protest their artificial intelligence. We still support them. When we listen, we don't seem to be evaluating what they say. If they are from "our party" we don't scrutinize their statements. We pay more attention to the politicians' fashion statements than their political statements. We are more interested in the state of their sex lives than their contributions to matters of state. If the press corps and the public are satisfied with artificial intelligence from politicians, perhaps a chatter bot is quite sufficient and maybe even appropriate. But can a democracy survive on artificial intelligence? Lawrence Diggs, Roslyn, is a South Dakota Humanities Council scholar. He makes presentations and conducts seminars worldwide on food, culture and human dynamics. Write to him at American News, P.O. Box 4430, Aberdeen, S.D., 57402, or e-mail americannews@aberdeennews.com.